4 ms·
I don't want to sound like a grouch, but it might be worth noting that the list of ways for founders & investors to devalue common shareholders is quite long. D
by zamfi 8y ago
I don't want to sound like a grouch, but it might be worth noting that the list of ways for founders & investors to devalue common shareholders is quite long. Dilution, recapitalization, you name it. At every investment point, the company (i.e., the controlling interests) have the opportunity to effectively reincorporate and reallocate ownership.
Really my point is that ultimately there's a level of good faith action required on the part of both founders and investors in order for even the best case scenarios to yield money for common stockholders. It's one reason why reputation is so important in business.
No employment contract you sign with an employer is ever "ironclad", so you do your best to make sure they're reasonable people who understand the value of reputation and that business is "iterative" -- in the game theory sense!
- roguecoder 8y agoThis is also why at least one actually-independent board member is a good sign: at least someone involved has a fiduciary duty to the common stock holders.
- deanmoriarty 8y agoBut don't founders typically have common stocks as well? How exactly can they dilute other common holders rather than themselves, without implementing some very bad shenanigans (e.g. a-la Mark Zuckerberg with FB)?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]